Talk:Portlock, Alaska

Re establishment

You know we should considering about re establish society in there, with better security etc. I know there's some kind of murderous bigfoot in there but on this day us military could create a robotic bigfoot equipped with guns etc, we should consider to take what belong to human once. 27.131.4.144 (talk) 12:35, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Factual Subversion

This page should be held up as a perfect example of how historical fact can be so easily subverted.

Funniest aspect is how easily debunked the “Bigfoot” information was just by looking at the edit history, mirroring that to web pages and then following the very circular nature of external websites referencing this wikipage which in turn adds those external websites as references to this Wikipage.

Throw into the mix the fact that the laziest fact checking company on the planet (google) uses this Wikipage as its information drop when you Google search Portlock and you have the perfect example of “post truth” knowledge share.

Donald J Trump would be proud… If he cared.

Gadget0501 (talk) 11:37, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Robert Johnson

Wish I could be there be safe people these things are playing with you right now and then when done they will come in for the kill 2001:5B0:44C6:D398:99CB:3FF8:8125:A738 (talk) 17:46, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

April 15, 1973, issue of the Anchorage Daily News

@SuperTah: how do you know the Anchorage Daily News item is a fabricated story? For clarity, do you mean the news story article is a fabrication, that it never appeared in the Anchorage Daily News, making the interpretation that stories only circulated in the 2000's accurate?Halbared (talk) 09:50, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Hi! Principally, the question of trustworthiness came between the 'Mouth of the Kenai' source and the 'Anchorage Press' source, not necessarily with the Anchorage Daily News. As a more robust source, the Anchorage Press article takes precedence- its interview with the primary source's family of the Mouth of the Kenai article stating her fabrications, and its notation that all other claims are lacking in evidence, also takes precedence.

I did try finding that original article (April 15, 1973), but it's paywalled. Even if recovered, you'd also have to trust the Mouth of the Kenai articles' assertions that the events are associated with Nantiinaq, which has already been shown to be untrustworthy. So in conclusion...

a & b) April 15, 1973 article of Anchorage Daily News- unsure if it is a fabrication, leaning on yes as the Anchorage Daily Press found neither evidence nor links with Nantiinaq

c) There is a big bump in traffic surrounding Portluck after the Mouth of the Kenai article, making its circulation is popular media in the 2000's

We won't police what the conspiracy theorists say in their channels, but at this point, this is how I think Wikipedia should see this. SuperTah (talk) 15:22, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

A thorough answer, thank you for laying it all out. I too went to the Anchorage Daily News to try and find the issue. I see it costs a few dollars. I have emailed them to see if there is an article that details the stories. Unfortunately, I was not able to access The Anchorage Press, due to the below;

451: Unavailable due to legal reasons. We recognize you are attempting to access this website from a country belonging to the European Economic Area (EEA) including the EU which enforces the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and therefore access cannot be granted at this time.

I understand the Nantiinaq issue might be separate. If the stories of the abandonment are in the Anchorage Daily News, then stories of the abandonment do go back to the 70's. Analogous to that, would be if the Nantiinaq is name dropped. I have read that the indigenous people of the area understand Nantiinaq to be something separate to Bigfoot, but also, sometimes the two do cross over, and in common parlance Bigfoot is used. Which is why I attached the piping. The stories being fabrications are covered in the next sentence. So in conclusion, I was trying to ascertain if the "fabrications" were made in the 2000's or were earlier. I hope this explains my previous edits.Halbared (talk) 16:17, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

No stress at all! My apologies, the way I had it was a bit clumsy- we have so many aggressive bigfoot enthusiasts that it's hard to find people coming in good faith.

Ah, that's a shame. That's fair, if the article is there then we could possibly say "began in the 1970's and remerged in the 2000's".

You're right. I reread the Anchorage Press article, and there are intersections between Nantiinaq and Bigfoot, although as Nantiinaq is very divergent from Anglo-American conceptions of Bigfoot, it seems as if it's merely the closest English word to Nantiinaq they were able to find. In accordance with the source, we should add something to that effect. SuperTah (talk) 16:50, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

May be good to check in with this book if you have access (Abandoned: The History and Horror of Port Chatham, Alaska)

https://books.google.com.au/books/about/Abandoned.html?id=2so8zgEACAAJ&redir_esc=y SuperTah (talk) 16:59, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, I can imagine! I admit, I do find this topic most interesting myself. The compromise sentence sounds very good, as most of us got to hear of it later on in the web-age. Thank you very much for the book recommendation. I shall look at it, the story of Port Chatham is really appealing. Halbared (talk) 10:04, 16 December 2023 (UTC)